Katia,
When you talk about "dynamic discovery, semantic interoperability and
ontological reconciliation" in the military domain, are you talking about
future technologies or do you have specific examples in mind of this being
done today?
Thank you,
Ugo
-----Original Message-----
From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:54 PM
To: margaret lyell; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion
Margaret,
I agree!
Additional extremely important arenas for deployment of services where
dynamic discovery, semantic interoperability and ontological reconciliation
are very important are military operations. There, services and
communications become unavailable in an unpredictable fashion, and discovery
of "substitutable"/"equivalent" services is needed. In addition, think about
military coalition operations where each of the coalition partners comes
with their own services, ontologies and models, but yet, very quickly they
need to be able to find each other's services and interoperate. And,
military coalitions are a bit more demanding than mergers and acquisitions:)
Cheers, Katia
-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of margaret lyell
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:53 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: Lyell,Margaret J.
Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion
Hi,
My comments are inline.
Best regards,
Margaret
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message-ID:
<7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E2EAE3F@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
> From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
> To: "'Francis McCabe'" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:01:44 -0700
> Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion
>
> I agree rather strongly with your statement, "It is my assertion that that
> includes being able to handle the standard (even ancient) ways that
business
> has been conducted". Unfortunately, to my mind that means looking at how
> EDI works. REALLY works. And in general that does NOT include discovery
of
> business partners or any of this late binding stuff. The relationships
and
> processes are set up early and carefully by people. I absolutely cannot
> imagine the people who actually are responsible for these business
processes
> accepting automated discovery and other automated things involving
semantics
> other than at the end of a LONG evolutionary process. The risks would be
> too high, and anybody who is doing that sort of business is by nature risk
> averse.
While I think that B2B is an extremely important arena for the
deployment of web services,
there are other usage scenarios for which discovery (and some elements
of semantic interoperability)
and late binding would be useful features. Consider the case in which
emergency response teams
from various organizations need to provide each other with information.
Any particular group of teams
would be formed in an ad-hoc manner, presumably from federal, state,
local, and non-gov. organization groups. Web services could assist with
rapid information exchange. But, I don't think that well-established
mappings done by people could all be done ahead of time. The use of
ontologies in the narrower domain of emergency/rescue services would be
of great use here.
Also, there is the arena of consumer to business (C2B) scenarios [and
maybe C2C as well ].
Over the past decade, businesses have been very dynamic, with mergers,
acquisitions, spin-offs.
If a web services architecture *allowed* for some level of discovery,
semantic information availablity (ontologies ?), and late binding, then
a company could incorporate the web service activities of its latest
acquisition more rapidly.
>
> In other words, I like your 3 and 4, but probably not 1 (depending on how
> one interprets it) and certainly not 2. And I still agree strongly with
> Suresh's proposed statement.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:57 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion
>
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 07:08 AM, Damodaran, Suresh wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > From the discussions so far in this thread, is there a consensus that
> > "though defining semantic equivalence of functional behavior is an
> > interesting idea, it is very ill defined to be considered a
> > requirement of Web Service Architecture"
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Suresh
> > Sterling Commerce
>
> This is a straw man; a very poor implement with which to beat a dead
> horse. On the other hand, simply wishing away a problem doesn't magick
> (sic) it away.
>
> We ignore semantics at our peril. Let me repeat, the game is `doing
> business on the Internet' and `its my system talking to yours' when `we
> met 3 milliseconds ago'. If you can achieve this without explicit
> semantics I'd like to see how to do it.
>
> CORBA `failed' because it required a prior agreement between
> programmers -- i.e., a time scale of months if not years to get stuff
> through OMG. It is also incredibly fragile because of its very early
> binding character. I am not advocating CORBA over SOAP.
>
> On the other hand, `web services as RPC using SOAP' doesn't work either.
> The Internet is a public forum, and that changes everything.
>
> In order to transform web services from `something that shows promise'
> to `something that delivers value to customers' you need to address real
> business needs, not just those that it is easy or convenient to handle.
> It is my assertion that that includes being able to handle the standard
> (even ancient) ways that business has been conducted. It also includes
> taking maximum advantage of the potential offered by the public forum.
>
> If we fail in our vision then we will fail to make a difference and web
> services will be yet another technological roadkill. On the other hand,
> if we adopt a strong goal -- of enabling people to conduct business in a
> standards enabled fashion -- then we will have something to be proud of.
>
> I believe that this calls for:
>
> 1. A vision of web services as a deployment platform for doing automated
> business in a public forum
> 2. A capability for discovering potential business partners
> 3. A facility of doing business that reflects the natural flow of
> information during a business relationship
> 4. An environment in which trust and security is fundamental
>
> Frank McCabe
>
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:46 AM
> > To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it's best if we concentrate on developing the reference
> > architecture
> > as "job No. 1" rather than try to reach conclusion on the extent to
> > which
> > semantic inferences are integral.
> >
> > The industry really needs guidance on what a web service is and isn't,
> > and
> > what is and is not included in a Web services architecture that does
> > more
> > than the basics.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 4:07 PM
> > To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
> > Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:18 PM
> >> To: Champion, Mike
> >> Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
> >> Subject: Re: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public
> >> discussion
> >>
> >>
> >> The bottom line: avoid phrasing the question in terms of equivalence,
> >> instead phrase the question in terms of `have I heard of this name
> >> before'?
> >
> > My bottom line is
> >
> >>>> concepts like semantic equivalence that
> >>>> could create expectations well beyond what Web Services can
> >>>> actually deliver today.
> >
> > I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing and using technologies using "a
> > graph
> > of concepts that a web service provider publishes to describe his or
> > her
> > service. A client applies a matching test to that graph -- which might
> > include getting references from other graphs -- to see if the graph is
> > congruent with his desired service." Maybe I'm not looking in the right
> > places, but I just don't see that in the real world of web services
> > today.
> >
> > Thus, it is IMHO inappropriate to *require* the WSA to accomodate
> > ideas which *may* prove powerful, until their practical value has been
> > demonstrated. The W3C -- to bang one of my favorite drums, sorry --
> > is most successful when working to standardize practice, and least
> > successful when
> > trying to do computer science by committee. I would be very happy to
> > incorporate field-tested semantic inference technology into the WSA,
> > but I
> > can't agree to require it based on the current state of the art.
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * Next message: Ugo Corda: "RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services -
public discussion"
> * Previous message: Mark Baker: "Re: [RTF] Behavior definition of
Services - public discussion"
> * Maybe in reply to: Damodaran, Suresh: "[RTF] Behavior definition of
Services - public discussion"
> * Next in thread: Ugo Corda: "RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of
Services - public discussion"
> * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
> * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
--
703-883-6509 (phone)
mlyell@mitre.org